heston and cranford area committee …democraticservices.hounslow.gov.uk/(s(gnmmhd45d2u4a345d4...at...

If you require further information about this agenda please contact: Wendy Merry on 020 8583 2061. HESTON AND CRANFORD AREA COMMITTEE (PLANNING)

A meeting of the Heston and Cranford Area Committee (Planning) will be held in the Civic Centre, Lampton Road, Hounslow on Thursday, 5 October 2006 at 7:30 pm MEMBERSHIP

Councillors Bath,R, Chaudhary, Dhaliwal(Sukhbir), Dhillon,G, Dhillon,P, Gill,M, Gill,S, Hughes, Lal, Mann, Sangha and Vaught.

AGENDA

Communications and Formal Business

1. Apologies for absence, declarations of prejudicial interest or any other communications from Members

2. Minutes of the meeting held on 7 September 2006 3. Minutes of Previous Meeting (Pages 1 - 3) Speakers

4. Protocol for Speakers

i) Members of the public or applicants must contact the Committee Administrator, Wendy Merry on 020 8583 2061 with details of the proposed submission no later than 5 PM, on Thursday 28 September 2006. Notification will be given of the decision with regard to the request to speak. The Chair will decide whether or not to grant the request to speak.

ii) For planning applications, the applicants will only be allowed to speak if there is an objector who wishes to address the Area Committee. In exceptional circumstances the Chair may agree that an applicant who would significantly add to the information already available will be allowed to speak at the Area Committee in the absence of an objector. If refusal is recommended then speakers would not normally be permitted.

iii) For all highways matters, if there are members of the public with opposing views regarding the proposal the chair will allow both sides to speak. Generally, speakers will only be allowed to speak on issues where funding is available.

iv) With regard to planning applications, where both parties address the Area Committee, the order of speaking will be the applicants followed by the objectors.

v) Each party will be given no more than 5 minutes to speak. vi) The Area Committee will consider submissions on up to 6 items per meeting: 3

planning applications and 3 highways matters. vii) Written submissions must be made to the Committee Administrator before 4 pm on

the day of the meeting. 5. Items on which there are speakers

Planning Applications for Decision

6. 7 Sutton Dene, Hounslow (Pages 4 - 14) 7. 78 The Alders, Heston (Pages 15 - 21) 8. 44 Avenue Crescent, Cranford (Pages 22 - 27) Planning Enforcement

9. 13 Spring Grove Crescent, Hounslow (Pages 28 - 31) Other Planning Matters

10. Delegated Decisions (Pages 32 - 36) 11. Addendum Report (Pages 37 - 39) DECLARING INTERESTS

Committee members are reminded that if they have a personal interest in any matter being discussed at the meeting they must declare the interest and if the interest is also a prejudicial interest then they may not take part in any discussion or vote on the matter. If applicants or objectors on any application have contacted Members, they must also declare this fact. T.WELSH, Director of Legal Services London Borough of Hounslow, Civic Centre, Lampton Road, Hounslow TW3 4DN 5 October 2006

At a meeting of the Heston and Cranford Area Committee (Planning) held on Thursday, 7 September 2006 at 7:30 pm at Civic Centre, Lampton Road, Hounslow.

Present:

Councillors Bath,R, Dhaliwal(Sukhbir), Dhillon,G, Dhillon,P, Gill,S, Hughes, Lal, Mann, Sangha and Vaught.

Apologies for Absence

Councillors Chaudhary and Gill,M. Councillor Lal had sent apologies for being late. He arrived at the meeting at 7.45 pm.

66. Declarations of prejudicial interest or any other communications by Members

Councillor Mann declared that he had been contacted by all of the applicants.

67. Minutes of the meeting held on 10 August 2006

The minutes of the meeting held on 10 August 2006 (agenda item 2) were agreed with the following amendments: Councillor Hughes advised that she had not received correspondence from S Mistry concerning 37 Mornington Crescent and Councillor Mann advised that he had declared that he had been contacted by all of the applicants (item 51, page 1 refers).

68. Matters Arising

Robert Coomber, the Area Planning Manager, advised that the planning application for 37 Mornington Crescent was under consideration (item 58, page 3 refers).

69. 725 Bath Road, Hounslow - Planning Application No.00083/725/P7

See report by the Director of Planning (agenda item 5) The application was withdrawn because the site was smaller than the proposed extension and the application could therefore, not be detemined.

70. 129 West Way, Heston - Planning Application No.01193/129/P1

See report by the Director of Planning (agenda item 6) Robert Coomber advised that a late submission had been received objecting to the application and raising concerns about the impact on traffic, loss of privacy, out of character with the street scene, the flat in the roof space and failure to respect the ceiling line. Mr Coomber did not feel that there would be a significant increase in traffic caused by the proposals and that the parking situation would remain the same. The frontage would face onto 2 streets and the height and mass would be the same as a pair of semi-detached houses. The sizes of the units complied with Council standards and were considered to be appropriate. Members raised concerns that the proposals would remove a family home and replace it with flats when there was a need for family homes to be retained in the Borough. They noted that the road was predominantly large family homes and were concerned that the proposals may set a precedent for further development.

Agenda Item 3

1

Resolved:

That the demolition of existing building and erection of a 3 storey block of 5 x 2 bedroom flats with associated parking spaces, means of access and landscaping to 129 West Way, Heston be referred to the Sustainable Development Committee for determination because the proposals raised important planning issues relating to the loss of family houses and the introduction of flats into a community of predominantly single family houses.

71. 70 Firs Drive, Cranford - Planning Application No.00452/70/P7

See report by the Director of Planning (agenda item 7) Resolved:

That the retention of an existing single storey outbuilding for use as a shed/playroom to the rear garden of 70 Firs Drive, Cranford be refused for the reasons set out in the report.

72. 250-272 Lampton Road, Hounslow - Planning Application No.00676/250-272/P2

See report by the Director of Planning (agenda item 8) In response to a question, Robert Coomber advised that the proposals were below the threshold for S.106 contributions to be sought. Resolved:

That the erection of a 3 storey extension to provide 3 x 2 bedroom flats and associated landscaping, amenity space and 3 parking spaces to 250 – 272 Lampton Road, Hounslow be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report.

73. 3 John Street, Hounslow - Planning Application No.00649/3/P13


That the erection of a single storey side and rear extension to 3 John Street, Hounslow be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report.

74. 358 Great West Road, Hounslow - Planning Application No.00505/358/P2

See report by the Director of Planning (agenda item 10) Members raised concerns over the conversion of an existing family home into flats and the potential impact on parking in a road, where problems already existed. They felt that the area contained some of the Borough’s premier houses and felt that these should be preserved. Members noted that the proposals were below the amount required under the UDP guidelines for floor space. Resolved:

That the erection of a 2 storey side extension, single storey rear extension and conversion of house into 2 flats with associated parking to 358 Great West Road, Hounslow be refused because the proposal would result in the loss of a small single family house, for which there was an identified need in the Borough, contrary to adopted Unitary Development Planning Policy H.3.4.

2

75. Cranford Community College, High St, Cranford - Planning Application No.00608/E/P22

See report by the Director of Planning (agenda item 11) Members supported the proposals, which they felt were beneficial to the environment.

76. Old Queen's Head P/H, Heston Road, Heston - Planning Application No.00798/101/P7

See report by the Director of Planning (agenda item 12) Members were concerned that the proposals would create an added burden on the existing infrastructure and impact on local schools, traffic and health services. They noted that the original building had been aesthetically pleasing and did not feel that the proposals were attractive in comparison.

77. Garages at Chinchilla Drive, Hounslow - Planning Application No.01341/D/P2

See report by the Director of Planning (agenda item 13) Members raised concerns that the new health centre could be closed in the future and asked that members of the Sustainable Development Committee consider retention of the centre as part of a S.106 agreement.

78. 52 Cranford Lane, Cranford


That enforcement action for the reduction in height of the roof to the original ridgeline and the demolition of the roof extension and the removal of all resultant debris to 52 Cranford Lane, Cranford be agreed for the reasons set out in the report.

79. 36 Firs Drive, Cranford

See report by the Director of Planning (agenda item 15) This item was withdrawn, on the advice of the Area Planning Manager, because there were some matters of fact in the report, which needed to be checked and corrected.

80. Results of Planning Appeals

See report by the Director of Legal Services (agenda item 16) The report was noted.

81. Delegated Decisions

See report by the Director of Planning (agenda item 17) The report was noted.

The meeting finished at 8:26 pm.

3

References: P/2006/0237 01092/7/P1

Address: 7 Sutton Dene, Hounslow

Ward: Heston East

Proposal: Continued use as a house in multiple occupation (HMO) for six persons.

Drawing numbers: DP5/2377/12/PP/01 and DP5/2377/12/PP/02 received 23 January 2006

Date received: 23 January 2006

Members deferred this planning application at the Heston and Cranford Area Committee (Planning) on 1 June 2006 in order to ascertain the relationship between the owner/landlord/council and to provide evidence as to why Houses in Multiple Occupation of this type are needed. This information is contained within Appendix A

1.0 SUMMARY 1.1 The application proposes the continued use of the premises for temporary residential

accommodation for up to six homeless persons and satisfies an established demand for accommodation within the Borough without harm to surrounding residents’ living conditions. Approval is therefore recommended.

1.1 The further information gathered as a result of Members’ deferral of the application supports this approval recommendation (see Appendix A).

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 This is a two-storey semi-detached house on the north side of Sutton Dene. The

Council’s Homeless Persons Unit currently places people at the property for temporary housing. As now used, the property is a house in multiple occupation (HMO with bedrooms, a shared kitchen and a shared bathroom. There is also a garage attached to the side and a single space in front of the garage accessed by a shared crossover.

2.2 The original net internal floor area of the house is approximately 90 square metres. The rest of the front garden is landscaped with a low front wall.

2.3 The area is residential comprising mainly similar semi-detached houses.

3.0 HISTORY

7 Sutton Dene 3.1 No planning history for the site.

Other HMO decisions on appeal 3.2 On 5 June 2003, the Area Committee considered five applications for HMOs at other

properties within the Borough for largely identical uses. A decision was deferred because the Committee decided that there was a need for a corporate policy decision to be taken on how to deal with applications for HMOs where the Council was involved in using the premises for one of its statutory purposes.

Robert Coomber: Tel 020 8583 4995 e-mail: [email protected] Heston and Cranford Area Committee (Planning) 5 October 2006

Agenda Item 6

4

3.3 This was to allow the Executive an opportunity to look into the issue of HMOs where the Council was contractually involved. Members also asked officers to provide more information on how similar change of use applications were dealt with.

3.4 After that deferral the applicant appealed against the Council’s failure to determine all five applications within the statutory eight-week period. As a result, the Area Committee did not have the opportunity to make a final decision on those cases as the appeal pre-empted this possibility and the Committee did not reconsider the matter. Nor was the issue of policy pursued at the Executive. A sixth similar application was refused on 18 March 2004.

3.5 The Council fought the appeals on the grounds that the use would have an unacceptable effect on neighbours’ living conditions. The Inspector allowed all the appeals, stating that there is a known demand for the use of the appeal properties as houses in multiple occupation and, in this respect, there is clear policy support for these uses from policy H.3.4A of the Unitary Development Plan in cases where there is a known demand.

3.6 In allowing these appeals, the Inspector made the following observations to justify her decision: • The premises were already in use as an HMO and appeared to be well managed;

• That there would be adequate on-site parking for the use; • That the change of use of one small house would have little impact on the area as a

whole; • That there was an established need and all occupants were referred by the

Council’s own Homeless Persons Unit, and that it was therefore important that the use should be allowed to continue; and

• That no evidence had been submitted to suggest that the conversion of the house to this use would prejudice the need to retain existing family housing stock.

3.7 She granted permission with a condition limiting occupancy to a maximum of six persons and solely to people nominated by this Borough. These appeal permissions were for the following properties:

• Ashlea, Grove Road (00530/C/P7)

• 48 Bulstrode Avenue (00170/48/P2)

• 52 The Drive (00367/52/P4)

• 64 Mornington Crescent (00773/64/P4)

• 42 Taunton Avenue (01110/42/P4)

• 2 Heathdale Avenue (00587/2/P1)

3.8 Since then, the Council has approved a further four similar applications under delegated powers at:

• 45 Francis Road (Hounslow West Ward) 00464/45/P1

• 410 Bath Road (Cranford Ward) 00083/410/P3

• 442 Bath Road (Cranford Ward) 00083/442/P1

• 107 Shelley Crescent (Heston West Ward) 01010/107/P1

5

3.9 Two further HMOs were also allowed on appeal on 26 September 2005 at:

• 62 Beavers Lane (00092/62/P1)

• 37 Taunton Avenue (01110/37/P1)

3.10 At Beavers Lane, the Committee’s reason for refusal was that, as a result of the density of occupation of the property by four semi-independent household units, its continued use as a house in multiple occupation was considered inappropriate to and out of character with this area of small family housing, with insufficient off-street parking for the use, harmful to pedestrian and vehicle safety and because it was considered that the use generates unacceptable and disproportionate levels of activity, noise and disturbance in this small house, so harming neighbours’ living conditions.

3.11 In both these cases, the Inspector considered that the need for this type of accommodation outweighed the need to retain small single-family houses, particularly because so few dwellings were involved. He also took the view that the activities of occupiers would not cause harm to neighbours any more than would be so in the case of a single-family house.

3.12 He granted permission subject to a condition limiting the occupancy to 6 persons, but did not require that the residents be referred to the premises by Hounslow’s Homeless Persons’ Unit as the Council had suggested in its appeal statement.

3.13 At 44 Basildene Road a further appeal relating to the Council’s failure to determine an application for a HMO was allowed on 15 June 2006. The Committee had resolved on 9 February 2006 that, had an appeal not been lodged, it would have refused permission for the following reason.

The proposed use as a house in multiple occupation would be harmful to neighbours’ living conditions and to the character of the area as a whole as a result of an over concentration of such uses in this area, which is otherwise predominantly comprised of single family housing and as a result of the potential capacity of the premises, because of its size and layout, to house twelve residents which, including the level of activity likely to be associated with the use, would be out of scale and character with the family use of adjoining houses, contrary to adopted Unitary Development Planning Policies ENV-B.1.1, H.3.4A and H.7.4.

3.14 The Inspector considered that the property was far enough away from other similar uses as not to result in an over concentration, and so would not harm the character of the locality.

3.15 He also concluded that there was clear evidence that the HMO was needed. He concluded that the occupancy of the premises would increase in future and cause noise and disturbance.

4.0 DETAILS 4.1 This is a retrospective application for use as a house in multiple occupation.

It provides temporary accommodation for homeless people directly referred from the London Borough of Hounslow Homeless Persons Unit. The occupiers may be single persons in individual rooms, or they may be a family in the house as a whole.

4.2 The property comprises five bedrooms, a shared kitchen and a shared bathroom. Cleaning and servicing of the premises, bed linen, and breakfast for residents is provided by the applicants.

6

4.3 Given the element of care provided to residents and the temporary nature of their stay, the occupiers of the house do not necessarily live as a single family. As such, the proposal cannot be considered to be a single-family dwellinghouse (C3) use. Similarly, as a limited service is provided, as there is no manager on site and as there is no commercial provision for members of the public, the use cannot be considered to be an hotel.

4.4 This is because. although tenants receive breakfast as part of the requirements of accommodation for homeless people under the Housing Acts, the property cannot be assessed as a bed and breakfast property in the usual meaning of the term as it does not offer commercial rooms to let. It only offers accommodation to homeless people referred by the Council.

4.5 Therefore, in town planning terms, the use is considered to be hybrid (or ‘sui generis’), with various characteristics of single-family housing, of a house in multiple occupation and of bed and breakfast use.

5.0 CONSULTATIONS 5.1 Eight neighbours were notified on 31 January 2006. Two letters of objection have been

received commenting as follows:

Comment Response

The property has been used as a house in multiple occupancy for some time now and there has been an increase in the number of cars parked in Sutton Dene, especially when taken with cars parking connected with Lampton School.

See paragraphs 7.11 and 7.12

Number 22 Sutton Dene is also used as a House in Multiple Occupancy and this has already resulted in increased parking pressure.

There is no planning, enforcement or building regulations history relating to this use, which would not necessarily require planning permission. Council tax records from 2005 show the property as a single-family house.

5.2 Housing Strategy and Services The Council’s Homeless Persons Unit have confirmed that this property is used by the Council to house homeless people, run to a particularly high standard.

Heston and Cranford Area Committee (Planning) 1 June 2006 5.3 The application was deferred at committee by Members in order to ascertain the

relationship between the owner/landlord/council and to provide evidence as to why HMOs of this type are needed in the Borough. The Homeless Persons Unit has prepared a report in response to Members’ questions and the report is attached in Appendix A.

7

6.0 POLICY 6.1 Unitary Development Plan

ENV-B.1.1 New Development H.3.4A Houses in Multiple Occupation H.3.4 Conversion of houses to flats H.7.4 Bed and Breakfast Accommodation T.1.4 Car & cycle parking & servicing facilities for developments

6.2 London Plan

3A.14 Addressing the Needs of London’s diverse population

7.0 PLANNING ISSUES 7.1 The main planning issues to consider are:

• Whether there is an established demand for accommodation for unrelated homeless people.

• Whether there would be any harm to surrounding residents’ living conditions or the character of the area.

• Relevance of previous appeal decisions.

• Parking provision.

Demand 7.2 Policy H.3.4A (Houses In Multiple Occupation) of the UDP seeks to protect and retain

residential properties in multiple occupation which meet a known and established need, although the policy does not extend to encouraging provision of further accommodation of this type.

7.3 The Council’s Housing Strategy and Services unit have confirmed that additional properties are being sought to add to their portfolio, and that 7 Sutton Dene is an existing house in multiple occupancy (HMO) which they consider is well run and managed to a high standard.

7.4 In similar recent cases, they have previously stated that

• The Council currently has a high demand for this type of accommodation and is using current hotels to capacity;

• This type of interim emergency accommodation is essential as a place to house homeless persons while the Council investigates whether it has a duty to provide permanent accommodation for the people in question; and that

• The unit is reviewing working practice with emphasis mainly on prevention of homelessness, which in turn would reduce the need for this type of accommodation. The aim is to reduce the requirement for the type of premises in this application by about 40% in the next twelve months.

7.5 In the meantime, however, it is clear that the unit needs such accommodation to fulfil the council’s obligations to homeless people.

8

7.6 For these reasons, in line with Policy 3.4A (House in Multiple Occupation), the principle of the proposal is considered acceptable because there is a known and established need, as the policy requires. This policy also supports London Plan policy 3A.14.

7.7 However, a condition is proposed for a limited permission of one year. This is to allow the Local Planning Authority to assess whether there remains a specific need for this type of accommodation, given Housing Strategy and Services’ intention to reduce dependency on it.

7.8 Policy H.3.4 resists the subdivision of houses which had a minimum original net internal floor area of less than 120 square metres. Once it reaches a certain level, the cumulative effect of the loss of properties of this type could harm the character of existing residential areas and would result in a less flexible use of Borough housing stock. The proposal would cause the loss of a family house less than 120 square metres floor area. Nevertheless, the Borough also appears to need accommodation of this type, as the Homeless Persons Unit has indicated in paragraph 7.3.

7.9 Although the proposal would cause the loss of a small family house, for which there is an established need in the Borough, it is considered that this loss would, in this case, be outweighed by the need to provide accommodation of the type proposed as set out in policy H.3.4A.

Neighbours’ living conditions, the character of the area and relevance of previous appeal decisions

7.10 There have been no previously recorded complaints about the current use of the property through planning or environmental health. The objections to the current application, relate to parking only. This is discussed in paragraphs 7.11 and 7.12. The lack of complaints about the use supports the view that the present proprietor operates the accommodation in a responsible and neighbourly way, and, it is not considered that the activities of the occupiers would cause any more harm to neighbours than would be so in the case of a single-family house.

7.11 The accommodation comprises five bedrooms (four potential double rooms and a single room). The potential maximum occupancy of the house could therefore be nine adults, but the applicant has agreed to a limit of six. It is considered that the use of the property by six residents would not be likely to result in any more noise and disturbance than would be created by a family of six, and a condition is recommended to restrict occupancy to that number, as previously imposed by the Council and the Planning Inspectorate on other similar approved HMOs in the Borough. A higher number of residents might be a matter for concern and therefore the proposed condition is prudent (condition 3).

7.12 Therefore, as supported by the Planning Inspectorate in other appeal decisions for HMOs in this Borough (see section 3.0), it is not considered that the use of the property as a House in Multiple Occupation for up to six persons, has changed the character of the use of the property. The nature of this use is residential, and surrounding land uses are predominantly single-family houses. There is no obvious change in the appearance of the property to signify a change of use. In light of these facts, and the lack of previous complaints, it is considered that this continued use would not harm local residents’ living conditions or the character of the area.

7.13 Condition 4 is proposed to deal with refuse storage and collection, as this one external manifestation of the use, could potentially detract from the street scene and lead to poor environmental conditions.

9

7.14 Appeal Inspectors have consistently concluded that these uses do not present any greater risk of disturbance to neighbours than would use as a single family house and that they do not significantly alter the character of a neighbourhood. There do not appear to be any other similar uses nearby and so it is considered, as observed and in line with Inspectors’ conclusions at appeal that this use would not result in an over-concentration of HMOs in the area.

Parking 7.15 The property has a single garage attached to the flank with space for one vehicle to

park in front of the garage.

7.16 To comply with the Council’s maximum parking standards, the proposal would not generate a requirement for additional spaces under UDP policy T.1.4. The Council’s Head of Traffic and Parking therefore has no objection to the proposal, as two off-street spaces would be retained. If this were a single family house, the Council’s maximum parking standards for a single-family house of this size would be two off-street parking spaces. As the maximum number of occupants living in the property would be limited to six, it is considered that the proposal would not be likely to have any greater impact on local parking conditions than a single-family house. Condition 5 is also proposed to ensure that the garage is retained for parking.

7.17 Inspectors have consistently concluded at appeal that these uses do not present a problem from a traffic and parking point of view.

8.0 EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IMPLICATIONS 8.1 The continued use of the site would provide temporary accommodation for homeless

people from within the Borough, which is urgently required by the Council’s Homeless Persons Unit.

9.0 CONCLUSION 9.1 Continued use of the premises for temporary residential accommodation for up to six

homeless persons satisfies an established Borough demand for such accommodation without harm to neighbours’ living conditions or to highway safety. This is supported primarily by a assessment of the facts relating to this site, reinforced by the lack of complaints about this particular use and by the overwhelming and consistent approach taken by planning inspectors at appeal to similar cases in the Borough.

10.0 RECOMMENDATION

GRANT REASON: With appropriate safeguarding conditions, the continued use of the premises for temporary residential accommodation for up to six homeless persons satisfies an established demand for accommodation within the Borough without harm to the character of the area, the living conditions of surrounding residents or highway safety and is therefore acceptable in accordance with adopted Unitary Development Plan Policies ENV-B.1.1 (New Development), H.3.4A (Houses in Multiple Occupation) and T.1.4 (Car & cycle parking & servicing facilities for developments).

10

Conditions:

1 Limited period use The permission hereby granted shall be for a limited period expiring one year from the date of the permission when the use shall cease and the property shall be reinstated as single-family dwellinghouse. REASON: The Council would wish to review the permission at the end of the period in relation to the need for this type of accommodation in the Borough.

2 B5 In accordance with approved plans REASON: B5R

3 Restricted occupancy The occupants of the dwelling shall be limited only to persons referred to the owners by the London Borough of Hounslow, and shall be limited to no more than 6 persons at one time

REASON: To protect neighbours’ living conditions and to meet an identified local need in accordance with adopted Unitary Development Plan policies ENV- B.1.1 (New Development) and H3.4A (Houses in Multiple Occupation)

4 Refuse storage and collection

A bin store or sealed refuse bins shall be provided within the rear garden within 1 month of this decision and permanently retained thereafter. No refuse shall be stored in the front garden and refuse shall be removed every day from the property by the visiting domestic staff and this refuse shall then be disposed of in a manner which shall first be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority within two months of the date of this permission.

REASON: To protect the character and appearance of the area and to discourage the spread of vermin in accordance with adopted Unitary Development Plan policy ENV- B.1.1 (New Development).

5 Garage retained for parking purposes

The existing side garage on the site shall be permanently retained and made permanently available for parking by residents of the premises and shall be used for no other purpose.

REASON: To ensure the sufficient provision of on-site parking for the development in accordance with adopted Unitary Development Plan policy T.1.4 (Car & cycle parking & servicing facilities for development).

11

APPENDIX A

1. The relationship between the owner/landlord/council; and

a) Any landlord who has B&B accommodation can apply to the Temporary Accommodation Unit for inclusion on the B&B list.

b) Before a B&B is accepted on to the list the property must meet strict criteria. Initially the

unit would ask to see evidence that planning permission had been granted, or at the very least, applied for. Each property is then inspected by an Environmental Health Officer from the Private Sector Housing Unit.

c) The property is inspected against established criteria laid down in regulations regarding

health and safety, plus conditions as agreed by the GLA agreement on B&B’s (known by the acronym BABIE – Bed and Breakfast Information Exchange). Each B&B is then graded as per BABIE from A to E. The Council would not use a property that fell into the D or E category.

d) The management aspect of the B&B is then dealt with by the Temporary Accommodation

Unit. A senior officer would make an inspection of the property using the criteria laid down by BABIE. It is only after all these inspections have been carried out successfully that a property would be included in the Council’s list.

e) Homelessness, by its very nature, is demand led. It is for this reason that Hounslow

Council do not block book any Bed and Breakfast accommodation to avoid paying for any unoccupied rooms. Therefore all rooms are booked on a daily basis and can be cancelled similarly. Equally of importance is that the Council are able to claim a nightly Housing Benefit rate on this type of accommodation thereby defraying any excessive cost to the General Fund.

f) The prices paid to landlords are fixed on an annual basis via a BABIE pricing meeting

involving all Greater London Authorities. These rates are based on room sizes, although Hounslow Council has secured agreements with all our landlords to pay only by numbers. For example if a single person requires a room and the only rooms available are triple rooms the Council only pays the single rate.

g) All the B&B’s are inspected regularly by the Temporary Accommodation Team and all

health & safety documentation, public liability and insurance must be kept up to date at all times. If, at any time, the B&B falls into a D or E grade or if relevant documentation has not been supplied, the B&B will be decanted immediately and not used again until the criteria are fully met.

h) Landlords invoice the Council on a weekly basis and each invoice must be accompanied

by an official Hounslow register of occupancy. 2. Statistical evidence as to why HMO’s are needed.

a) Emergency accommodation, namely Bed and Breakfast, for homeless households is strictly regulated on a London-wide basis under the auspices of the ALG via the Bed and Breakfast Information Exchange Unit (BABIE).

b) The BABIE unit was established following acknowledged bad practices in the 1960’s

whereby homeless families were put into often unsafe and over-crowded premises and were obliged to leave the Bed and Breakfast each morning and not permitted to return until the evening.

12

c) By their nature, homeless households are not able to access safe and secure

accommodation during the day or to eat out in restaurants continuously. Therefore the BABIE regulations state that all B&B accommodation for homeless households must be available for continuous use and, crucially, must have a kitchen where food can be prepared.

d) Under these criteria, commercial hotels are not a viable option. Commercial hotels are not

willing to accept the nightly rates Council’s will pay, nor do they have the kitchens available for residents’ use. It is for this reason that the use of HMO accommodation has become more prevalent. Hounslow Council do in fact use some large B&B accommodation, the largest two being both out of borough.

e) The use of B&B accommodation for families has decreased during the past two years due

mainly to the government regulation stipulating that no family can be in accommodation where they share facilities for longer than six weeks. However the Council still have a large number of single households who are vulnerable and in priority need of housing.

f) It has been established that this group of single households feel more secure and safe in

smaller accommodation units. They are also easier to manage from both the landlord and Council perspective. While it used to be easier to have a ‘mixed’ tenure in B&B’s, the government regulations have now resulted in most B&B’s being tenured by single households resulting, occasionally, in anti-social behaviour.

g) The Housing department are fully appreciative and aware that this type of accommodation

can cause some of the Borough’s residents concern. However, it must be appreciated that the Council have a statutory duty to house this vulnerable group of clients. The vulnerability can include, for example, young people leaving care, ex-offenders, mental illness and domestic violence victims.

h) The statutory duty owed to these clients stipulates that they are placed in a safe and

secure environment whilst awaiting permanent accommodation. The Temporary Accommodation Unit endeavours, as soon as possible, to respond to any issues with clients and/or neighbours relating to anti-social behaviour or other issues, where reported or observed.

i) Given the lack of larger B&B accommodation, HMO’s are used. Wherever possible, the

Council’s first option would be to use existing HMO’s as it is fully appreciated that larger single occupancy houses are equally in short supply. However the Council is aware that we ‘compete’ for existing HMO accommodation with students (due to the College in the Borough), nurses (from West Middlesex Hospital), other key workers and low paid workers in general.

j) Whereas the Council will and can use out-of-borough accommodation this is not always

viable or practicable. The nature of our clients often means that they need to access other local agencies such as the Mental Health Team or Connexions (for the younger clients). This means that the clients must be placed in the Borough.

k) Given the lack of emergency accommodation available combined with our statutory duty

we have little option but to use HMO accommodation.

13

References: P/2006/1792 00021/78/P5

Address: 78 The Alders, Hounslow.

Ward: Heston East

Proposal: Retention of the existing outbuilding for use as store room/shower room and leisure room to rear of existing house.

Drawing numbers: Drawing Numbers: Appendix 1, Figure 1, Figure 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 received 06/06/06.

Application received: 06/06/06

1.0 SUMMARY 1.1 The building does harm both the character of the neighbours’ living conditions through

its inappropriate size and it has been refused on these ground several times in the past. However, it has been more than 4 years since the last refusal and enforcement action has not been taken. More importantly, the building was subject to an Enforcement Notice in January 1998, as the height of the roof was outside permitted development tolerances. This has subsequently been remedied when the roof was replaced by a pitched roof in the year 2000 of 4m height, which was inspected by Enforcement staff. The matter was then closed. No Certificate of Lawfulness was ever granted for the outbuilding, though it is now within permitted development tolerances.

1.2 Therefore, the Local Planning Authority cannot require the removal of the whole building, but can enforce against its use for purposes not ancillary to the main use of the house.

1.3 The inclusion of a bathroom in the building is considered to create the potential for the outbuilding to be used as a separate dwelling, which is contrary to Council Planning Policy, but there is no evidence of this at present. The shower room has been in situ for 2 years and the building has continued to be used for purposes ancillary to that of the main house.

1.4 In the interests of expediency enforcement action is not considered appropriate at present. As a consequence, approval is recommended, but with the inclusion of a condition preventing the building being used as anything other than ancillary to the main house.

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 The site is a corner/bend plot in the Alders with a two-storey, semi-detached, white

rendered gable end family dwelling.

2.2 The site shares a driveway with No.76 and has a detached garage at the end of this drive, which is attached to No.76’s garage.

2.3 There is large red brick outbuilding in the rear paved garden, which is the subject of this application.

2.4 The street is predominantly residential in character.

David Bevan/Sean Doran Tel 020 8583 5188/4943 e-mail: [email protected]/[email protected] Heston and Cranford Area Committee (Planning) 5 October 2006

Agenda Item 7

15

3.0 HISTORY 3.1 00021/78/P1 Erection of single and 2 storey rear extension to dwellinghouse. Granted 16/08/72.

3.2 00021/78/P2 Erection of a pair of garages (Joint application with No.76). Granted 21/2/73.

3.3 00021/78/P3 Erection of detached building at rear end of garden to dwellinghouse to provide shed and playroom.

Refused 19/12/96. REASONS: Obtrusive, overbearing, loss of living conditions.

3.4 00021/78/P4 (1) Retention of detached garden shed/store, children’s playroom. Refused 14/10/97.

REASONS: Obtrusive, overbearing, loss of living conditions.

Appeal dismissed 01/04/98.

3.5 00021/78/P4 (2) Erection of single storey building for use as playroom to rear of dwellinghouse.

Refused 11/01/2000. REASONS: Obtrusive, overbearing, loss of living conditions.

Enforcement History 3.6 The outbuilding has previously been the subject of an enforcement investigation, due to

its height, which was high enough to mean that the building did not constitute permitted development. This investigation resulted in the issue of an Enforcement Notice (ref SJM/P62.937). This breach has been resolved, with the addition of a 4m high pitched roof. Following an inspection the matter is considered closed by the Council.

3.7 The current case at 78 The Alders was instigated after an Enforcement Officer visited the neighbouring property No. 76 The Alders to investigate an allegation that an outbuilding was being used for residential purposes. That allegation was unfounded, but whilst on site it was noted that the outbuilding at No. 78 had a satellite dish installed on its front. The case officer noted this and carried out an inspection of the outbuilding. This inspection found that the outbuilding was being lived in by at least one person, with a bedroom/living area and a separate toilet and shower room.

3.8 The Enforcement section wrote to the owners of No. 78 The Alders on 6th March 2006, outlining that a breach of planning control had been established and that they could either remedy or regularise the breach. Between 8th March 2006 and 24th May 2006 the owner and case officer corresponded by email. Whilst the owner kept promising to apply to regularise the matter, an acceptable application was not submitted until 6th June 2006. However, this application does not ask for the retention of the outbuilding as a separate residential unit, but rather as a storeroom with toilet. Therefore it should be considered as such and the expediency of taking enforcement action against a separate residential use will also be considered.

16

4.0 DETAILS 4.1 The proposal seeks permission for the retention of an outbuilding, which consists of a

store room (11.93sq.m), shower/toilet (4.47sq.m), leisure room (35.74sq.m) and cupboards (2.98sq.m).

4.2 The outbuilding is 14.02m wide and 3.91m deep and 3.95m high with a dual-pitched roof.

4.3 The footprint of the outbuilding is 54.82sq.m, only slightly smaller than the 56.16sq.m footprint of the main house. The outbuilding is, at most only 0.6m away from the side and rear boundaries of the site.

4.4 There are 2 windows and 3 doors in the front elevation, one of which resembles a common type of residential front door.

4.5 Nos 80 and 82 both have rear outbuildings, although both appear to be smaller, whilst No.76 has a much smaller outbuilding in the rear of its garden, which sits south-west of the outbuilding which is the subject of this application.

5.0 CONSULTATIONS 5.1 Six neighbouring residents were notified on 15/06/06. Three replies were received,

commenting as follows. One of the letters stated that the writer had no objection.

Comment Response

The building is being used as a dwelling house and not as a garden shed.

See Paragraph 8.8

The work has been carried out knowing that this form of development is not permitted.

See Paragraph 8.8

There are no details of drainage or sewage. See Paragraph 8.10

6.0 LEGISLATION 6.1 The Town and Country (General Permitted Development) Order 1995

Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E Outbuildings.

6.2 Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Sec 171B(1) Immunity from Enforcement.

7.0 POLICY Unitary Development Plan ENV-B.1.1 All New Development. H.6.4 Extensions and Alterations.

Residential Extension Guidelines Section 7 Detached Outbuildings

8.0 PLANNING ISSUES 8.1 The main planning issues to consider are:

• The acceptability, in principle, of the proposal. • The impact of the proposal on the appearance of the neighbourhood. • The impact of the proposal on the living conditions at neighbouring properties.

17

The acceptability, in principle, of the proposal 8.2 The erection of outbuildings in the rear garden of a property is, in itself not

objectionable, subject to its compliance with all levels of planning policy.

8.3 For reasons detailed below, the building is not acceptable. This outbuilding did not comply with planning policy when first built and was refused planning permission. However, enforcement action was not completed, as a subsequent amendment in the height and pitch of its roof has meant that the outbuilding now constitutes permitted development. Therefore, the Council cannot enforce its removal.

8.4 It is the policy of the London Borough of Hounslow that a detached outbuilding in the garden of a house should only be used for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of a single-family house and for no other purpose. In this context, no other purpose is taken to include, use as a bedroom, living room, office or other business use, or as a separate dwelling, and such buildings should not include toilet, bathroom or kitchen facilities. This is to protect neighbours’ living conditions and the character of residential areas.

8.5 Therefore, the use of part of an outbuilding as a shower room is not usually considered acceptable in principle.

The impact of the proposal on the appearance of the neighbourhood and the impact of the proposal on living conditions at neighbouring properties.

8.6 These matters cannot be considered in planning terms in this case, as the outbuilding has been in existence for over 4 years, and, due to its size and position, it is permitted development. However, due to the insertion of a bathroom in such an outbuilding, this proposal could be considered as an application for a separate dwelling, as the insertion of a bathroom is not considered to be an ancillary or subordinate use, but would allow the creation of a separate unit, through the further insertion of a kitchen and other facilities at a later date.

8.7 The location and position of this unit does not allow either independent site access or parking. Its use as a separate dwelling would therefore be detrimental to the parking situation in the Alders. Additionally, the use of the building at the rear of 78 The Alders as a separate dwelling would affect the living conditions of both those at the main house and those occupants of neighbouring houses in their living rooms and garden space, through loss of privacy and outlook. Moreover, the occupiers of the outbuilding dwelling would also have inadequate outlook and privacy. Therefore, it is considered that the building is not suitable for use as an independent unit and it would be inappropriate to foster conditions that would allow its use as such. Nevertheless enforcement action is not considered expedient in this case, because there does not appear to be any separate dwelling use at present.

8.8 The stated uses of the building - storage and recreation - are considered to be ancillary to that of the main house. The inclusion of the bathroom, a use not usually considered by the Council to be ancillary to the main house, would not enable the building to be used independently of the main house, as there is no kitchen and no substantial evidence of a bedroom in the building at present. However, as the overall size of the building and the internal room sizes are large, this would not preclude such independent use occurring at a later date. Therefore, a condition preventing separate use should be inserted in any permission. At present, there is no reason to think that the applicant is deliberately trying to establish a new dwelling at the site and thus approval under condition is proposed in lieu of enforcement action.

18

8.9 It is not recommended that the Council should in future accept the use of the outbuilding as a separate dwelling and officers would recommend that the Council should enforce against such a use, should it occur at a later date. The commencement of such a use would be considered to include the insertion of a kitchen. This would clearly show that the structure and its use was not subordinate to that of the main house.

8.10 Whilst there are no details of drainage or sewage, this is not a planning matter, but rather one for the Building Control department.

9.0 EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IMPLICATIONS The width of the doorways is not compliant with Council Policy regarding disabled access. Additionally, the bathroom is not considered to be easily manoeuvrable.

10.0 CONCLUSION 10.1 The outbuilding as a whole is considered to be an incongruous addition to the area, but

constitutes permitted development, so its removal is therefore unenforceable under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

10.2 The insertion of the bathroom, a use in an outbuilding which the Local Planning Authority does not usually consider as being ancillary to the main dwelling, is considered acceptable in this instance, subject to the building remaining ancillary in use to the main building and being conditioned as such.

11.0 RECOMMENDATION:

GRANT Reasons: The inclusion of the bathroom in the outbuilding represents a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse. As such the proposal complies with policies ENV-B.1.1, and H.6.4 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan. Conditions: 1 Ancillary Use.

The detached outbuilding hereby permitted shall only be used for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the single-family dwellinghouse known as 78 The Alders and for no other purpose (i.e. it shall not be used as a bedroom, living room, office or other business use or as a separate dwelling and should not include further toilet, bathroom or kitchen facilities). Reason: The building is considered unsuitable for occupation by a separate person or household and such use would harm the character of the neighbourhood and neighbours’ living conditions.

Informatives: 1 The applicant is advised that the further insertion of residential facilities in the

building other than those considered to be ancillary to that of the main house and the use of the building as separate dwelling is likely to result in enforcement action being initiated by the Council. If the applicant is in any doubt as to what is considered ancillary by the Council they are advised to seek its advice.

19

References: P/2006/2285 00060/44/P2

Address: 44 Avenue Crescent, Hounslow

Ward: Cranford

Proposal: Erection of a single storey rear extension to existing dwelling and outbuilding in the rear garden for use as a shed

Amended Drawing number: 1181/06/A. Received: 12/09/2006

Application received: 17/07/2006

1.0 SUMMARY 1.1 The proposal is to demolish of an existing outbuilding and the erection of a single

storey rear extension and outbuilding at 44 Avenue Crescent. The applicant has indicated that the outbuilding will be used as a garden shed.

1.2 The proposal is consistent with the adopted Unitary Development Plan polices, ENV-B.1.1, B.2.2 and H.6.4 and therefore would not harm the appearance of the house or local area.

1.3 The proposal is in accordance with the Council’s Residential Extension Guidelines (REG), and as discussed would not be detrimental to any neighbours. Therefore approval is recommended subject to conditions.

2.0 SITE & AREA DESCRIPTION 2.1 The 186m2 site comprises a two-storey semi-detached dwelling located on the eastern

side of Avenue Crescent. The dwelling does not appear to have been previously extended.

2.2 The site is within the Cranford Village Conservation Area. 2.3 A shared access extends along part of the southern boundary of the property. An

existing 14.2m2 outbuilding (which is to be removed) is located on the southern boundary of the site.

2.4 A large outbuilding located on the adjoining property (46 Avenue Crescent) adjoins the

southern boundary of the application site. 2.5 Neither of the adjoining dwellings at 42 or 46 Avenue Crescent has been previously

extended.

3.0 HISTORY 3.1 00060/44/P1 Erection of a single storey rear extension and conversion of dwellinghouse

into two self-contained flats Refused: 20 October 1988

Tim Joll: Tel 020 8583 6623 e-mail: [email protected] Heston and Cranford Area Committee (Planning) 5 October 2006

Agenda Item 8

21

4.0 DETAILS 4.1 The proposal involves the demolition of an existing 14.2m2 outbuilding and the erection

of a single storey rear extension and detached single storey outbuilding at 44 Avenue Crescent.

4.2 The proposed single storey outbuilding would be located on the southern boundary of the application site and would be setback a minimum of 0.4m from the rear boundary, and 1.0m from the northern site boundary. It would be separated from the extended dwelling on the property by 6.1m. The outbuilding has a length of 3.65m and is 5.84m in width. It has a ridged roof 3.9m in height, reducing to 2.4m at the eaves level.

4.3 The applicant has indicated that the outbuilding would provide a garden store. The building would incorporate a door and two windows on the elevation facing the dwelling.

4.4 The proposed rear extension as amended following negotiation would extend to a depth of 3.65m from the rear wall of the dwelling. It would have a width of 5.5m and a lean-to roof 3.3m in height, reducing to 3.1m above the eaves. The extension would sit below the existing first floor bay feature on the rear façade of the dwelling.

4.5 The extension would provide a new kitchen, incorporating a door and window on the rear façade.

4.6 The outbuilding and rear extension would be constructed of materials and finished in colours that match those of the existing dwelling on the site.

5.0 CONSULTATIONS 5.1 Six neighbouring residents were notified on 25/07/2006. A site notice was erected on

04/08/2006. One response was received opposing the proposal.

Comment Response

The proposed rear extension would result in the loss of sunlight and impact on the living conditions of neighbours. The outbuilding may be constructed of inappropriate materials

See paragraphs: 8.6 and 8.7.

6.0 POLICY 6.1 Unitary Development Plan

ENV-B 1.1 New Development H.6.4 Alterations and Extensions

6.2 Supplementary Planning Guidance

Residential Extension Guidelines Section 1.0 Section 7.0 Section 8.0

Single Storey Rear Extensions Detached Outbuildings Conservation Areas

22

7.0 PLANNING ISSUES 7.1 Council planning policies ENV-B.1.1 and H.6.4 support the principle of household

extensions provided that they do not result in any adverse effects on the neighbours’ living conditions or the character and appearance of the locality. In conjunction with these policies, the REG were introduced to ensure that a balance is struck between protecting neighbours’ interests, keeping a good quality and attractive street scene and meeting applicants’ reasonable expectations for increased accommodation.

7.2 The main planning issues to consider are the impact upon the character of the house and local area, and neighbours’ living conditions.

Issues associated with the proposed outbuilding 7.3 With regard to the impact of the outbuilding on the character of the surrounding area, it

is noted that the Residential Extension Guidelines recommend that outbuildings be set in a minimum of 1m from internal boundaries and be set back a minimum of 5m from dwellings. As noted earlier, the proposed outbuilding would be located on the southern boundary of the application site and would be setback a minimum of 0.4m and 1.0m from the rear and northern boundaries respectively. The proposed outbuilding would be located 6.1m from the rear of the proposed rear extension. Given its positioning in relation to the rear and southern boundaries, the outbuilding is technically not in keeping with the Residential Extension Guidelines. However for the reasons outlined below, it is considered that the location of the proposed outbuilding would not have a significant impact on the character of the surrounding area or on the living conditions of adjoining neighbours.

7.4 In term of the adjoining neighbours at 46 Avenue Crescent, there is an existing 8m long outbuilding along the shared boundary with the application site. Given the location and scale of the adjoining outbuilding, it is considered that the proposed outbuilding would be visually screened by the bulk of the adjoining outbuilding and would therefore not affect the adjoining neighbours’ (at 46 Avenue Crescent) outlook or access to sunlight.

7.5 With regard to the impact of the proposed outbuilding on the living conditions of the adjoining neighbours at 24 Firs Drive, when viewed from adjoining properties to the rear, the existing mature trees at the rear of the application site would visually screen the outbuilding. Given the size of the trees and because they are protected by the Conservation Area designation, it is considered that they would mitigate any adverse effects on the living conditions of adjoining neighbours to the rear of the property which might otherwise arise from the proposal, and would ensure the character of the area is not adversely affected by the proposed outbuilding.

7.6 The design and the finished colours and materials of the outbuilding would complement that of the existing dwelling. The visual compatibility of the proposed extension will further mitigate the impact of the proposal on the outlook from adjoining properties.

7.7 The volume of the existing outbuilding is less than 115m3. As such, it can be demolished without the need for Conservation Area Consent.

23

Issues associated with the rear extension

7.8 In terms of the proposed rear extension’s impact on the adjoining neighbours at 42 and 46 Avenue Crescent, it is noted that the size of the extension is consistent with the Residential Extension Guidelines being 3.65m in depth and a maximum of 3.3m in height. As such, it is considered that the extension would be secondary to the original house and in proportion with the existing dwelling and rear garden, so preventing over development of the site and ensuring that any adverse effects on the outlook from or sunlight and daylight to adjoining properties will be minor.

7.9 The design, doors, windows and roof are generally in keeping with the existing dwelling and the proposed extension would be built from materials and finished in colours to complement those of the existing buildings on the site. Although a bay window is altered at the ground floor, the bay feature at the first floor would remain, ensuring there is no significant loss of important architectural features. The visual compatibility of the proposed extension will further mitigate the impact on neighbours’ outlook.

7.10 The proposed rear extension would not be visible from Avenue Crescent, therefore no harm would occur to the street scene.

7.11 To protect on neighbours’ privacy, the proposed rear extension has no side windows in accordance with the Residential Extension Guidelines.

7.12 For these reasons, it is considered that there would be no unacceptable adverse effects on neighbours’ living conditions.

8.0 EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IMPLICATIONS 8.1 None

9.0 CONCLUSION 9.1 As the proposal is consistent with the intent of the Council’s Residential Extension

Guidelines it is considered that the extension and outbuilding would not result in any undue harm to neighbours’ living conditions. The proposal is in accordance with policies ENV-B.1.1, B.2.2 and H.6.4 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and therefore would not be harm the appearance of the house or the local area.

RECOMMENDATION:

GRANT Reasons: Provided appropriate safeguarding conditions are implemented, the proposed single storey rear extension and outbuilding would be acceptable as they would not harm the appearance of the dwelling or local area, and would not significantly impact on the neighbours’ living conditions. The development is consistent with the London Borough of Hounslow adopted Unitary Development Plan policies ENV-B.1.1 (New Development), B.2.2 (Conservation Areas), H.6.4 (Extensions and Alterations) and the Council’s Residential Extension Guidelines.

24

Conditions: 1 A1a Time Limit

REASON: A1R

2 Matching Materials The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension and the outbuilding hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing house.

REASON: To protect the appearance of the Cranford Village Conservation Area.

3 B5 Detailed Applications REASON: B5R

4 D2 No Additional Window REASON: B2R

5 D3 Balconies REASON: D3R

Informative: The detached outbuilding shall only be used for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the single-family dwellinghouse known as 44 Avenue Crescent and for no other purpose (i.e. it shall not be used as a bedroom, living room, office or other business use or as a separate dwelling.

25

Contact: David Bevan Tel: 020 8583 5188 E-Mail: [email protected]

Heston and Cranford Area Committee (Planning) 5 October 2006

13 Spring Grove Crescent, Hounslow

Report by: Director of Planning

Summary This report seeks Members’ authority to issue an enforcement notice in respect of the second rear extension at the rear of this house.

1.0 RECOMMENDATION That the Committee considers it expedient, having regard to the provisions of the Unitary Development Plan, and all material considerations, to grant authority for:

• All necessary steps to be taken for the preparation, issue and service of an enforcement notice in relation to 13 Spring Grove Crescent, Hounslow requiring within two calendar months:

• Removal of the second rear extension.

• Removal of all resultant debris.

• The institution of any necessary legal proceedings in the event of non-compliance with the above enforcement notice, pursuant to Section 179 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“TCPA 1990”)

• The carrying out of works in default under Section 178 TCPA 1990 in the event of non-

compliance with the enforcement notice. 2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 This is a two-storey semi-detached house located on the eastern side of this road. The street is predominantly residential in character. The property had an original rear extension that was built under permitted development rights. Initial enforcement investigations established that the house has recently built a second rear extension.

Planning History

2.2 01047/13/P1 – Following the enforcement investigation conducted following an anonymous complaint about the development, the owners were invited to attempt to regularise or remedy the breach. The owners applied to see if planning permission would be granted. This application was refused on 18 July 2006.

Agenda Item 9

27

Enforcement History

2.3 On 5 April 2006 an enforcement investigation was set up following a complaint that a second rear extension had been erected. On 25 April 2006 a site visit established that 13 Spring Grove Crescent has two rear extensions. The combined depth of the two extensions was measured at 7.45m, the total volume of the two extensions measured an estimated 120m3. This substantially exceeds the permitted development allowance 70m3 and is 3.8m deeper into the garden than the 3.65m considered acceptable under residential guidelines.

2.4 A letter was sent to the owners on 27 April 2006 outlining the breach. This letter gave

the owners 28 days to either remove the second rear extension or apply for planning permission in an attempt to regularise the breach. On 26 May an application was submitted for the retention of the existing single storey rear conservatory extension to the house.

2.5 The application was refused on 18th July 2006. The decision was that due to the size,

bulk, appearance and position, the second extension represented an overdevelopment of the site. The refusal identifies the overbearing effect that the extension has on the neighbouring properties.

2.6 On 24 July 2006 a letter was sent to 13 Spring Grove Crescent confirming that

following the refusal that the second rear extension was still in breach. The owners were given a further 28 days to either remove the extension or appeal against the planning decision. As no contact was made by the owners a further letter was sent on 9 August 2006 requesting that the owners contact the Council before 21 August 2006 with their intentions. The owners made no further contact.

3 ANALYSIS

Expediency in general

3.1 The expediency of enforcement action is assessed with reference to guidance contained in PPG18 and Circular 10/97, both entitled ‘Enforcing Planning Control’.

3.2 Expediency is also assessed with regard to the statutory Development Plan, which for

the Borough consists of the London Plan (February 2004) and the Unitary Development Plan (U.D.P.), which was formally adopted in December 2003.

3.3 The London Borough of Hounslow Unitary Development Plan (U.D.P.) states the

following with regards to residential extensions:

Policy H.6.4 Extensions and Alterations

Proposed extensions and alterations should complement the original building, harmonise with adjoining properties and maintain the general street scene. The Council will have regard to special housing needs, such as the housing needs of extended families and people with disabilities, but the extension or alteration must not have an undue adverse impact on neighbouring properties. Extensions should normally be consistent with the Council’s guidelines on house extensions and meet the following criteria: (i) Proportion: The extension should have proportion and balance and must not

over-develop the site in terms of mass or density. It must fit in with the shape of the property;

28

(ii) Position: Extensions should respect property boundaries and be positioned to avoid loss of light to adjoining properties. Side extensions should be set back one metre from the front elevation, and on corner sites, one metre from the side boundary. Roof extensions should generally be restricted to the main roof slope to the rear of properties;

(iii) Materials: Proposals should aim to match the type of materials and colour to both the existing building and the surrounding area;

(iv) Details: Attention should be paid to design details, such as position and style of windows and doors must complement the existing building and respect the character of the area.

Unauthorised rear extension

3.4 The extension covering the full width of the house, measuring 7.45m in depth, has a combined cubic volume of 120m3. The cubic allowance for a terraced house is 70m3 which demonstrates the extremity of the over-development of the site.

3.5 The depth of the rear extension has a huge impact on both neighbouring properties.

The materials used detract from the original building, it is considered obtrusive and detracts from the appearance of the area. Its scale and position mean that it is overbearing and causes loss of light and outlook.

3.6 The rear extension shows a blatant disregard toward the Council’s guidelines, the

excessive over-development of the rear garden, which also has an outbuilding, causes a loss of light and amenity for the neighbouring gardens. The second rear extension also has a set of windows that overlook the neighbouring gardens, directly looking into the garden of 15 Spring Grove Crescent, worsening its un-neighbourly impact.

4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

4.1 The excessive extending of the property has caused a loss of garden space and is considered extreme. It is therefore considered expedient to enforce the removal of the second extension thus bringing the original extension within permitted development levels. This extension is therefore H.6.1 Extensions and Alterations implicitly, and ENV-B.1.1 (All New Development) un-implicitly, of the Council’s adopted Unitary Development Plan.

4.2 Based on the information in this report it has been concluded that no action short of the

proposed enforcement described in this report can remove the harm caused by this breach of planning control and enforcement action is recommended.

Background Papers: The Unitary Development Plan (UDP), Residential Extension Guidelines This report has been or is due to be considered by: Central Hounslow Area Committee This report is relevant to the following wards/areas: Heston East

29

��

��

��

�� !"� #$%%&%!��''&��

��

��

� (($��

�&)��'�*�#�!$��*�*��&)&�%)��$+�%��,��%�� !��-�.��

��

��

�$%'��*

��

�� !��"��#�$ ��% &#��'��()

*�+�%%��%�� ,�� -�"

��.�� /��%�� 0��1��

��22��2�� '��

��2�� 3��.��#�$ ��% &#��4��)�

*�+�%%��%�� /��"

�� /��%�� 0��1�� "� ��%"��/ ��%�0� �� "��

/��1��"&�%%��

��4�� '�'

�4��3%�// �"�� "#�$ ��% &#��'�2(�

*�+�%%��%�� /��"

��.�� /�� /��1�� "�� /%�� /� ��%�-�� /��1��

��22�� '2'

�� 3��.��#�$ ��% &#��4��))

*�+�%%��%�� ,�� -�"

��.�� /��%�� 0��1�� 1��

��' ��

��,-��!��"��#�3��"/ �"�$ ��% &#��4��+

*�+�%%��%�� /��"

��.�� /��%�� 0�"��.��"� ��%"�� /�� 5

��2�(,��

�2� ��!��"��#�$ ��% &#��'��()

3��/�.�� /�(�&/�%�6��!��"

3��/�.�� /�(�&/�%��/ �� "�� /� �� / ��.��//��

�� '''

��,-��!��"��#�$ ��% &#��4��+

*�+�%%��%�� /��"

��.�� /�� 0#��/% �#�� %��"��"��1��"�� /��1�� 1��

� ��

Agenda Item 10

31

��4�� 4

��7��.�� "#�$ ��% &#��'�2(8

*�+�%%��%�� ,�� -�"

��.�� /��%�� 0��1�� 1�� 5

��,� ��

��$��)��#�3��/ �"#��4��!

*�3 ��-�� !��"

� �� 1��&��3��/ �"�7�%%��3 ��-�� ,��

��)��%��%��$#

��4��2�(,�� 4

��2�7�.��+�� "#�$ ��% &#��4��9�

*�3��/�.�� /�(�&/�%�6��!��"

3��/�.�� /�(�&/�%��/ �� "��.�� /��%�� 0� ��%"��/ ��

��0�� "�� /�� 5

��4��:9; ��

��$�� "#�$ ��% &#��'(9

*�9��%��,�� -�"

+ %% &�� -�%�/ ��"�� %�� /��% &��"��.�� /��.�� /��& <� ��0�:��"� �;�

� ��&�� .��"��"��%��"�� 3 �"�� :��. �� ;� /�

�� -�"��%�� 4��"��"��4

��2��,�� '2

��,�� "#�$ ��% &#��4��

*�=��%��%�� /��"

=��%��%�.�� / ��"�� %�� /��1��%"��"�� /��%"�� . ��'�1� ��

��"� ��/%��5

�� 2�

��%�" �� "#�$ ��% &#��'�2�!

*�+�%%��%�� ,�� -�"

��.�� /��%�� 0��1�� 1��

��4��2�(,�� '�

�2�9�- ��0�#�$ ��% &#��4��

*�3��/�.�� /�(�&/�%�6��!��"

3��/�.�� /�(�&/�%��/ ��.�� /��%�� 0��1��

��4�4��

�4��3��/ �"�(��#�$ ��% &#��4��

��"��&�

�� /�� /��1�� 5

��4�24��

�24�)�� (��#�$ ��% &#��'(,

*�+�%%��%�� ,�� -�"

��.�� /��%�� 0��"��1�� "��1�� /��1�� "��%�-�� /��1�� 5

��'��2��

��2��/��&�� "#�$ ��% &#��'�2�

*�+�%%��%�� /��"

��.�� /��%�� 0��"��1�� "��%�� 0��1��

32

��2��'��

��'�)�� )>��#�$ ��% &#��4��8?

*�+�%%��%�� /��"

��.�� /�� /��1�� . �� %��. �-�� #�� /��1�� "�� /�

%�� /� �� /�% �� /�� 5

��2�� '

��)�� )>��#�$ ��% &#��4��8?

*�+�%%��%�� /��"

��.�� /�� /��1�� . �� %��. �-�� #�� /��1�� "�� /�

%�� /� �� /�% �� 1�� 5

��2�� 2��

�2��)��%@�3% �#�$ ��% &#��9+

*�+�%%��%�� ,�� -�"

��.�� /��%�� 0��"��1�� "��%�"�� /� -��1��1�� 5

��<2�� '4�

��<2�� .��3% �#�$ ��% &#��'8(

*��"��&�

=��%��%�.�� / ��"�� %�� /��1�� "��.�� /�� 0��%"��

:. �� /��/%��;�&�� .��"��"��..�

��4��(,��

��9�- ��0�#�$ ��% &#��4��

*�3��/�.�� /�(�&/�%�6��!��"

3��/�.�� /�(�&/�%��/ ��"�� %�� /��1��1�� "��.�� /�� /�

�1�� . �� %��"��"��& �� /%�� /� ��%�-�� 1��

��4��:,; ��4�

��$�� "#�$ ��% &#��'(9

9��%��,�� -�"

+ %% &�� -�%�/ ��"�� %�� /��% &��"��.�� /��.�� /��& <� ��0�:��"� �;�

� ��&�� .��"��"��%��"�� 3 �"�� :��%;� /�� -�"�

�%�� "��"��4

��4�4��'��

��'�!�� "#�$ ��% &#��4��,�

*�+�%%��%�� ,�� -�"

��.�� /��%�� 0��1��

��)��%��$)�

��''��<�� 2�

��<��+��(��#�$�� #��4��$$

+�%%��%�� /��"

��.�� /�� .��&��"��..�� //��%�.�/ �� %%�0� /�� +��(��

��"��.�� /�/��.��&��"�� /��5

��4�� 2�

��4��$�� "#�$ ��% &#��4��?6

*�+�%%��%�� ,�� -�"

��.�� /��%�� 0��"��1�� 1�� 5

��2��=�� 22

A��&�$ ��!�� "#�$ ��% &#��4�� 6

*��%�. �� /�.�� ,��"

*��%%�� /�� 5��"�� "��"��.�%%��0�"�-�% ��

33

��4�4�'�� '��

�'��!�� "#�$ ��% &#��4�� B

*�+�%%��%�� ,�� -�"

��.�� /��%�� 0��1��

��2��)�4 ��

3�-�.�3��(�� "#�$ ��% &#��'9�

3 ��.�%�=&��,�� -�"

��.�� /�� %�� /� �� /�3�-�.�3��5�:�%�� ,��"�"��%��;

��4�� '��

�4�)�� 9��#�$ ��% &#��'�)

*�+�%%��%�� ,�� -�"

��.�� /��%�� 0��"��"��1�� 5

��'��

��)��!� -�� "#�*%�& ��#��' �

*�+�%%��%�� /��"

��.�� /��/��/% ��1�� 1��

��''��(,��

��+��(��#�$ ��% &#��4��$$

*�3��/�.�� /�(�&/�%�6��!��"

3��/�.�� /�(�&/�%��/ �� "��.�� /��%�� 0� ��%"��/ ��%�0� ��

� �� /��1��

��''�� '�

��+��(��#�$ ��% &#��4��$$

*�+�%%��%�� ,�� -�"

9�� %�� /��1��/� ��"��.�� "��.�� /��%�� 0��1�� "�

. �-�� /��1�� / ��%�� 1��

��4�4�4�� 2�2

�4��!�� "#�$ ��% &#��4�� )

*�*�-�%�"�,��%�.��

��.�� /��%�� 0��"��1�� 1��

��4�4�'�� 4�'

�'��!�� "#�$ ��% &#��4�� B

+�%%��%�� ,�� -�"

��.�� /��%�� 0��1�� -�"��""�� %� //�.��.��"�"��%�"��3�/�.�%��

��1�� //�.�5

��2�'�� 4�

��%�� "#�$ ��% &#��'��

*�+�%%��%�� ,�� -�"

��.�� /��%�� 0��"��1�� "�. �-�� /��1�� / ��%��

� ��5

��4�4�'��(,�� '��

�'��!�� "#�$ ��% &#��4�� B

*�3��/�.�� /�(�&/�%�6��!��"

3��/�.�� /�(�&/�%��/ �� "��.�� /�� %��"��"�� /��1��

�1��

��'��

�� ,-��#�$ ��% &#��4��$

*�+�%%��%�� ,�� -�"

��.�� /��"�� /��1�� #��.%�"��.��"�� /� -��1�� 0��"��1�� #��"��%��

� ��0��1�� "��1�� /�%�� /� ��"�� /��%�-�� /��1�� 534

��)��%�/�)�

��4: ; ��

��*�� %��$�0�� "#�) ��%%#�6 ��4C�

9��%��,�� -�"

+ %% &�� -�%�/ ��&�&� %��%�� .�%��%��&�� //�.�#�/ "�&� %��%��/�.�%��#�% �"��

��0#�� #�� .��"��%"��#��.�%%��0�/�.�%��"��/�.��.��5�� -�� /�

��%�.�&��"��5�9�-�% �� /��% 0��%"��: �#� ��"� ��;�&�� .��"�

.��#�% �"��"��..�#�"��%��"�� 3 �"�� 2��:�1��%��%%�� ;� /�

�� -�"��%�� /��.��4�"��"��5

��

��*�� %��$�0�� "#�) ��%%#�6 ��4C6

+�%%��%�� ,�� -�"

3�� /�� 0�.��>��"�/ �� "� /��0��"��. ��.�� /��&�

��5

��

�� D �� "#�$ ��% &#��4��(�

*�+�%%��%�� ,�� -�"

9�� %�� /��1��. ��-�� 0#��"��"��"��.�� /��"� /��.�#��1�

��"� ��"�� 1��5

��4��2��

��2�3��/ �"�(��#�$ ��% &#��4��$?

*�+�%%��%�� /��"

9�� %�� /��1�� "��1��1�� "��.�� /�� 0��"��"��%�� 0�

��1�� 5

��$'�� '��

�'��%��"��"�#�$ ��% &#��4��,C

*�+�%%��%�� ,�� -�"

��.�� /�� /��1�� 1��/% ��/%��

�%�$�� 3 ��

��#��"�%�� 4��'��4

�$�+!�� %*��$��)� �"&)��"$)��%��&)�* ��%)&*��*��

��)��%�$%*��$%'��*��$��$� #$%%&%!��((&��

�"&)��&)��#�0$%��"��

'�##�,&%!�,$�*)�

�$%'��*1��)��%�/�)�1��)��%��%��$#�$%*��)��%��$)�

35

HESTON AND CRANFORD AREA COMMITTEE (PLANNING) 5TH October 2006

ADDENDUM REPORT OF THE BOROUGH PLANNING OFFICER

AGENDA ITEM 6 Pages: 4-14

References: P/2006/0237 01092/7/P1

Address: 7 Sutton Dene, Hounslow

Ward: Heston East

Proposal: Continued use as a house in multiple occupation (HMO) for six persons.

Corrections to report: Paragraph 3.15 should read (changes in bold type): He also concluded that there was clear evidence that the HMO was needed. He concluded that the occupancy of the premises would not increase in future and cause noise and disturbance as a result.

The first Consultation response and Paragraph 7.10 line 3 should refer to paragraphs 7.15 and 7.16, not 7.11 and 7.12

Paragraph 9.1, line 4. delete the word ‘a’.


References: P/2006/1792 00021/78/P5

Address: 78 The Alders, Hounslow.

Ward: Heston East

Proposal: Retention of the existing outbuilding for use as store room/shower room and leisure room to rear of existing house.

The Ordnance Survey plan was omitted from the agenda and is attached herewith.

Agenda Item 11

36


References: P/2006/2285 00060/44/P2

Address: 44 Avenue Crescent, Hounslow

Ward: Cranford

Proposal: Erection of a single storey rear extension to existing dwelling and outbuilding in the rear garden for use as a shed

Page 25 Delete informative and insert additional condition (6) as follows: The detached outbuilding shall only be used for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the single-family dwellinghouse known as 44 Avenue Crescent and for no other purpose (i.e. it shall not be used as a bedroom, living room, office or other business use or as a separate dwelling). (Reason: To protect neighbours' living conditions and the character of the area)

37

heston and cranford area committee …democraticservices.hounslow.gov.uk/(s(gnmmhd45d2u4a345d4...at...

Documents